New from Cambridge University Press!

Edited By Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt

This book "fills the unquestionable need for a comprehensive and up-to-date handbook on the fast-developing field of pragmatics" and "includes contributions from many of the principal figures in a wide variety of fields of pragmatic research as well as some up-and-coming pragmatists."

SUMMARYThe book is a collection of thirteen papers exploring the language ideologiesbehind the recently widespread discourses concerning language endangerment.Through a combination of overarching discussions on the origins of the conceptsthat have helped shape the public rhetoric and emotions linked to endangeredlanguages in the past two centuries and a number of case studies analyzing thesettings of endangerment discourses in specific language settings, the authorsseek to better understand the ideological underpinnings of this challenging areaof sociolinguistics.

Heller and Duchêne open the volume with a chapter titled ''Discourses ofendangerment: Sociolinguistics, globalization and social order.'' They are clearthat instead of embracing what has become a widely accepted framework fordiscussing language endangerment, they seek to question this framework from adistance. Their strong suspicion is that the reason why so many anxieties havearisen about real or imagined threats to different languages (large as much assmall) is that ''Existing nation states, and existing minority and indigenousmovements, have a stake in reproducing their boundaries, as a central means ofcontrolling access to the production and circulation of resources with whichthey seek to maintain privileged relationships'' (5-6). These sorts of concernsare tightly connected with the concepts of language, culture and nation in ''anideological concept in which language figures centrally but is not the onlyelement. This is about more than essentializing languages, it is about thereproduction of the central legitimizing ideology of the nation state'' (7). Theauthors suggest that ''Rather than assuming we must save languages, perhaps weshould be asking instead who benefits and who loses from understanding languagesthe way we do, what is at stake for whom, and how and why language serves as aterrain for competition'' (11). These questions are a helpful foundation forapproaching the rest of the book's chapters as well.

''Defending diversity: Staking out a common global interest?'' by ShaylihMuehlmann explores the effects of analogies between threats to biodiversity andlinguistic diversity. Muehlmann argues ''that discourses taken up by languageendangerment campaigns construe the threat to languages and the environment in away that essentializes language, nature and indigenous people'' (15). Her chapter''assumes that the problem with biolinguistic diversity is its impendingextinction and it construes this problem in a manner that radically constrainsthe options for solutions'' (16). She explores the use of linguistic diversity asa rhetorical strategy in campaign materials (websites, pamphlets, campaignmaterials and publications) of a number of endangered language movements, NGOs,and academic programs. She makes an important observation when she points outthat ''in much the same way that the genome project construes genetic material,the campaign material of endangered language programmes also appears toprioritize languages over speakers'' (20). The rhetoric found in these materialscould also lead one to wrongly assume ''that speakers of endangered languagesnecessarily choose to preserve their native languages. As Mufwene argues (2004),the vitality of languages cannot be dissociated from the socioeconomic interestsand activities of its [sic] speakers who are often adapting to changingsocioeconomic conditions'' (30).

Muehlmann warns against assuming that there exists a simple relationship betweenenvironmental and linguistic conservation, due to the implications both have onsocial justice. ''Ultimately, we need to more carefully examine how linguistic,environmental and economic processes intersect in order to know how to accountfor the varied interests involved in cases of language endangerment'' (32).

Heller and Duchêne's point about language endangerment discourses' concerns withmany more than strictly linguistic issues is echoed in Donna Patrick's chapteron ''Indigenous language endangerment and the unfinished business of nationstates.'' Using the context of Canada, she considers how language rights and therelated discourses around them function in the struggle of Indigenous groups forgreater autonomy (36). In Canada, territory/land ownership is at the core ofIndigenous concerns, and the efforts to link this interest with the realm oflanguage endangerment issues create interesting challenges. Distinctively,Canadian Aboriginal groups highlight ''the 'unfinished business' of landnegotiations and the reconciliation between Aboriginal groups and the Canadianstate'' (38). Patrick builds her chapter on the analysis of the June 2005 _Reportto the Minister of Canadian Heritage_, prepared by the _Task Force on AboriginalLanguages and Cultures_. Because of the Supreme Court of Canada's understandingof Aboriginal culture in terms of traditional practices, the Aboriginal languagepromotion efforts have been focused on the ''essentializing of a link betweenAboriginal language and Aboriginal land'', which, however, ''risks excludingcertain Aboriginal groups [such as the urbanized Aboriginal communities] fromthe language endangerment discourse'' (37-8). Also, the Task Force's linkage ofAboriginal language, land and spirituality brings up the question, ''If languageis so connected to spirituality, can one be as 'authentically' spiritual withoutspeaking the traditional language?'' (52). Patrick's thoughts lead her toconclude that answering similar challenges ''will depend on a fluid concept oflanguage and a broadening of our conception of what counts as 'authentic'language revitalization in the twenty-first century'' (53).

In ''Discourses of endangerment: Contexts and consequences of essentializingdiscourses'', Alexandra Jaffe explores essentializing language discourses throughthe case of endangerment discourses in Corsica. Her approach ''takes alldiscourses about language (including the trope of 'endangerment') asfundamentally political'' (57). Jaffe uses seven examples of contemporaryendangerment discourses on the internet to point out the common essentializingelements of the endangerment discourses: the biological metaphor, enumeration,the 'rights' discourses, as well as the trope of ecology. All of the above havehad echoes in the Corsican language planning, and, as Jaffe notes, theconsequences are varied - and not always intended. She observes the effects oflanguage planning as reflected in language purism and homogeneism, whichinterpret regional diversity as an obstacle and challenge instead of an asset.Essentialism can also have the implications of incorrectly presenting languageas a unified code (66), and language communities as homogeneous and static (68).Conscious of her own work's political nature, she openly recognizes that sheendorses ''alternative models of language and identity that are practice ratherthan form-oriented, that acknowledge the political and social character of allidentity claims, and that leave room for the multiple forms of language practiceas well as heterogeneous and competing language ideologies among people whoidentify with endangered languages'' (70). As such, her approach pays attentionto the importance of context, and views language as a tool, thus allowing forits greater flexibility. She concludes that ''With respect to discourses ofendangerment, a defence of variability could shift the focus away from thesurvival of named linguistic codes towards the preservation of individual andcollective access to the fullest possible repertoire of language practices'' (71).

Raphaël Maître and Marinette Matthey explore the linguistic situation of acommunity in Romand Switzerland in their chapter ''Who wants to save 'le patoisd'Évolène'?'' They use data from 80 interviews to shed light on the attitudesaround the community's dilalia (a type of diglossia ''characterized by a dynamicrelationship between an official language, which is becoming more and moreprevalent, and increasingly, the first language of the population, and a localvernacular which is more and more marginalized'' [76]). According to the authors,the particularly Swiss ideology of language contact is founded in comprehensivesociology, methodological individualism, and a multilingual conception oflanguage(s) (81). Interestingly, although their first analyses of their data ledthem to conclude that there was a good chance of ''success of acting in thedirection of implementing a language policy, particularly the introduction inthe school of a course in Patois for interested students'' (83), in the end theyfound out that the effort would appear to the eyes of the population as ''asuperfluous luxury'' (93). The case is a useful counterexample to the dominantacademic language endangerment discourse of the past few decades.

''Français, acadien, acadjonne: Competing discourses on language preservationalong the shores of the Baie Sainte-Marie'' by Annette Boudreau and Lise Duboisdescribes the language ideologies present in a region of Nova Scotia, Canada.The authors' data came from ethnographic observations of a variety of communityevents as well as interviews. The center of the debate in this community ''is theissue of which variety of French is best suited to guarantee the community'ssurvival: the standard variety traditionally used by the educated and moneyedelite, or the local variety which has just recently been introduced during the1990s into the public linguistic market through the community radio station''(103). The feelings on both sides of the conflict are so strong that somespeakers claim not to understand the other variety, although they do in factunderstand it. Also, similar values are used to justify opposing points of viewin the discussion. The authors thus show that in this case, different groups ofsocial actors ''have multiple stakes and interests in preserving what theyperceive as 'their' variety of French'', and this shows that ''discourses onlanguage endangerment recreate the power struggles between members of thecommunity that exist already'' (118).

Joan Pujolar returns the discussion into a European setting in ''The future ofCatalan: Language endangerment and nationalist discourses in Catalonia''. Heanalyzes a public debate on the future of the Catalan language based on acollection of newspaper articles. In his corpus, he unveils ''two consecutivetensions, first over who counts as a Catalan speaker and second over therelationship between speaking Catalan and being Catalan'' (125). He shows, forinstance, how even participants with inclusive intentions end up creating ''anethno-national discourse that leaves non-native Catalans in a marginal position''(144). His is an example, like that of Jaffe's, of how language endangermentdebates cannot be disassociated from ''local political struggles over access topolitical and economic power'' (126).

The stance that ''the discourse of language endangerment is very rarely simplyabout the endangerment of a language'' (166) is reinforced by Tony Crowley in''Language endangerment, war and peace in Ireland and Northern Ireland''. In thisparticular context, Crowley notes that the threat to Irish was already beingused for a variety of social and political ends ''long before the currentanxieties about language death and the reduction in the number of the world'slanguages produced by globalization'' (150). For instance, ''Many who wereantagonistic to the British rule but did not support violent resistance saw inthe language rights issue a way of both expressing their identity and makingtheir political point in a non-violent form'' (160). Likewise, ''Ulster-Scots, afully fledged but endangered language, gave the Unionist community preciselywhat the Irish language gave the nationalist community: a medium through whichidentity claims and demands for civil rights could be articulated'' (166). AsCrowley says, the fact that language-centered discourses are a matter ofpolitics and history should not be surprising, given the strong importance oflanguage for our social being (167).

In ''Voices of endangerment: A language ideological debate on the Swedishlanguage'', Tommaso M. Milani addresses a language debate from the 1990s,focusing on social actors involved in the debate as well as its texts. He uses amultidisciplinary theoretical framework, drawing on performativity theory(including its key concepts of iterability and interpellation), CriticalDiscourse Analysis (CDA), and the Bakhtinian notion of voice (171). In additionto discussing how different social actors addressed the future of Swedish uponSweden's entrance into the European Union, Milani explores the policy document_Mål i mun_. In this discussion, he reveals the conflicting voices which, on theone hand, support the ideology of multilingualism and multiculturalism, and, onthe other, express the ideology of social cohesion, ''according to which socialcohesion is the foundation of civil society and is achieved by means of onecommon language (Swedish), which therefore needs to be preserved'' (187). Milanisees the metonymic representation of Swedish as the 'bearer' of the Swedishcultural heritage as the key to why the document ''reproduces a staticrelationship between one language indexing and symbolically standing for one, inreality diverse, blended and always changing culture'' (191).

Heller and Duchêne's observation that language endangerment concerns arisearound the whole spectrum of weak-to-strong languages is confirmed by RonaldSchmidt, Sr.'s chapter, ''Defending English in an English-dominant world: Theideology of the 'Official English' movement in the United States''. Schmidtexplains the core concerns of the movement by stating that the worry is notabout the threat of 'foreign' languages to English, but rather about otherlanguages that might be recognized as 'American' (198). The movement's rationaleuses arguments about unity and justice. However, using Tocqueville, Wolin, andHonig's works, Schmidt argues that ''both 'justice' and the 'common good' requirea pluralistic, not an assimilative English-only language policy'' (204). Thesuccess of the Official English movement can be explained by the fact that its''hegemonic language functions to blind most monolingual English-speakingAmericans to the social reality of their own privileged position in anethno-linguistically diverse society'' (205). Again, the argument is more relatedto power struggles than people usually realize.

Claudine Moïse explores a variety of feelings of threat in ''Protecting French:The view from France.'' She traces the ideology of unshakeable dogma in the realmof language, created in France in the 1500s and 1600s, and its impact on changesin the French history up until the present time. The existence of the identifiedand unifying code has led to feelings of threat to its imagined purity andhomogeneity, and the often unspoken association of the standard with theprivileged elites has encouraged fears of the ethnically and linguisticallyother, who ''threaten the reproduction of the dominant elite'' (233). Through abrief analysis of the controversy around the French reaction to the EuropeanCharter for Regional or Minority Languages, Moïse identifies the principle ofthe neutralization of the public space as the core of the fact that people'sdifferences are consistently being pushed into the private sphere. The fear ofthe other, thus never confronted in public, feeds the post-9/11 fears of theMediterranean and especially Arabic countries, which are well represented inFrance. Moïse points out that ''the French Republic has been challenged becauseit can no longer fulfill its contract of insuring equal opportunities andeconomic and social integration'' (228), because simply ''granting public equalitydoes not take into account the daily discriminations, the setting of distances,the marginalization processes'' (227) which are prevalent in the private sphere.The author thus warns that the more France ''closes its doors to diversity andchange because of its abstract universalism, the more it nourishes the demandsand dissatisfactions from the margins'' (236).

A very different approach to diversity is observed and analyzed in ''Embracingdiversity for the sake of unity: Linguistic hegemony and the pursuit of totalSpanish'' by José del Valle. The chapter looks at the Spanish Royal Academy's(RAE's) shift in efforts and philosophy as a result of concerns about thepossible fragmentation of Spanish in the Spanish-speaking world. Using JürgenHabermas' notion of public sphere, Richard Watts' analysis of discoursecommunities, and Antonio Gramsci's elaboration of hegemony, del Valle analyzesthe RAE's tactics in constructing the language ideology of the hispanofonía as aseemingly democratic grouping of all Spanish-speaking nations, and in strivingto defend its authority over Spain's former colonies by embracing intralingualdiversity. According to the author's observations, the RAE seeks to becomegenerally credible ''by claiming to produce a norm that directly emerges from thepeople'' (254) as well as by communicating through the Internet. Unlike theFrench case discussed in the previous chapter, del Valle argues that the RAE'sunderstanding of the importance of diversity for its goals is easy to follow:''There is no legitimacy without democracy, no democracy without consensus, andno consensus without diversity. In sum, in the contemporary construction of ahegemonic hispanofonía, diversity has become a theoretical imperative as well asa political necessity'' (263).

The final chapter, ''Language endangerment and verbal hygiene: History, moralityand politics'' by Deborah Cameron, concludes the volume with an analysis oflarge-scale language endangerment concerns. Cameron echoes other authors in thevolume in questioning the emotive, moralistic, and generally skewed terms inwhich language endangerment issues are presented in the media (269). She notesthat ''Far less attention is given to the overtly political, redistribution andrecognition struggles in which many language preservation and revitalizationmovements are actually embedded'' (270). She argues that the types of languageideologies characteristic of the current language endangerment discourses arerooted in historical developments such as the nationalist movement of the 19thcentury and even the racialized linguistics of the Nazi era (271), questions thestrength of the frequently mentioned indexical relationship between languagevariety and group identity (280), and warns against both ''a vernacularistnationalist organicist strain'', and ''an exoticizing or 'orientalist' strain insome preservationist rhetoric'' (281). Finally, Cameron points out that thestrong push for preserving diversity across the board as if linguistic diversityreally was analogous to ecological diversity not only ignores the motivationsthat drive preservation advocates, but, paradoxically, obscures ''the diversityand complexity of the concrete situations in which endangered language speakersfind themselves'' (284).

EVALUATIONThis volume is a useful contribution to the growing scholarship on languageendangerment. As the chapters' authors show, the discourses on languageendangerment have been growing in volume, but lacking in balanced accounts. Thiscollection begins to attack some of the questionable assumptions which have beenshaping the popular discussions on language endangerment, and encourages morecritical approaches to the varied settings in which one can observe languagevarieties under real or imagined threat.

One of the useful observations made repeatedly in the volume is that thecontexts of language endangerment are more varied than is usually recognized,especially if one pays attention only to mass media. Interestingly, however,even this volume includes a narrow remark by Muehlmann, where she says that ''Itis the disempowered whose languages 'die' (...)'' (31). This ignores theexistence of a number of cases which do not fit the pattern (e.g. the Welsh casementioned by Cameron in the last chapter, or the many endangered dialects ofotherwise 'strong' European languages), while giving a nice example of howsubtly the general assumptions about language endangerment ideologies can slipinto academic discourses.

The book has a number of typos (mostly involving spacing and punctuation, butalso those listed below) and some occasional puzzling claims/assumptions, ofwhich I will mention three: First, Jaffe, on p. 65, refers to Corsica's''pre-contact past'' without a further clarification. Given that language isfundamentally a contact phenomenon (from idiolect level all the way tolarger-scale population contact), the phrase should certainly have not beenassumed to be unproblematic. Second, Crowley says that ''Rather than saving thelanguage, the actions of the state, the Catholic Church and the languagemovement placed it further in jeopardy'' (156) without clarifying how exactlythat happened. Third, Moïse refers to ''the economic changes of the last fewyears, such as the entry into globalization'' (226), which sounds more like acatch-phrase than a meaningful reference. As any basic globalization reference(e.g. Steger 2003) will reveal, what we label as globalization is a complex setof processes that have been in motion for many centuries, and it is certainlyunclear how a country such as France could possibly be said to have ''enteredinto them'' in the last few years.

Overall, though, the volume is useful for those interested in understanding moreaspects of the development of the language endangerment discourses of the lastfew decades. Its key findings include the facts that ''the discourse of languageendangerment is not simply about any obvious criteria of inequality''; that''language endangerment discourses are not in any straightforward sense about theactual disappearance of languages''; and that ''it is difficult to maintainarguments about the inherent coding of knowledge in languages and of humanity'sheritage when we are dealing with languages for which we have ample evidence ofinstitutionalizing and change'' (9).

Steger, Manfred B. (2003) _Globalization: A Very Short Introduction_. New YorkNY: Oxford University Press.

ABOUT THE REVIEWERZuzana Tomková is a doctoral student at the University of Chicago. Her Master'sthesis focused on the significance of language ideologies in the field oflinguistics. Her other interests include sociolinguistics, discourse analysis,language endangerment, and descriptive linguistics.